Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Bossy is not a synonym for assertiveness, or other positive executive leadership skills.
Women are called bossy in the workplace more often than men are.
Bossy coworkers are described as unpopular and unlikely to be successful in the future,
and bossy women coworkers are seen as more unpopular and less successful compared
to bossy men coworkers.
When we look at bossy behaviorswithout the bossy labelmen are just as likely as
women to act bossy in the workplace.
Acting bossy is related to being seen as less promotable by bosses for both men and
women. However, the relationship was stronger for women.
Altogether, our results show a consistent trend that being bossy in the workplace has negative
consequences, and those consequences are particularly harsh for women.
Does the bossy label follow women from the playground to the workplace?
In a recent Wall Street Journal article, Sheryl Sandberg and Ann Maria Chvez (2014) argue that the word
bossy is not just a playground insult. They state:
The earliest citation of bossy in the Oxford English dictionary refers to a sentence from
1882 stating There was a lady manager who was dreadfully bossy.
Use of the word bossy peaked in the 1930s (when women were often accused of
stealing male jobs) and in the 1970s (when the womens movement led to an increase
of women in the workplace).
When Sandberg visited Howard University and asked women whether they were called
bossy as children, one woman answered, During my childhood? How about last week!.
1. Bossy people control others and dictate 4. Bossy people micromanage and prescribe
orders. specific actions (e.g., saying exactly how or
when something should be done).
2. Bossy people ignore others perspectives.
5. Bossy people are focused on authority,
3. Bossy people are rude and pushy towards
power, and status.
others.
6. Bossy people interact in aggressive ways.
The word assertive was notably absent from Rather, the word bossy seems to describe a
the definitions given by leaders. It only came pattern of poor interpersonal skills. This is a
up twice in all 201 definitions (thats less than serious problem in the workplace, as CCLs
1%), and both definitions seemed to describe research has shown that failing to manage
someone who is actually not very successful at interpersonal relationships at work predicts
being assertive, i.e. overly directive, assertive leadership derailmentthe situation in which
behavior . . . . . . micromanagers may think that high-potential leaders end up getting fired or
they are only being assertive . . . It seems that barred from promotion (Gentry, 2010; Gentry
being bossyat least in the workplaceis & Chappelow, 2009; Hogan, Hogan, & Kaiser,
not the same as just showing assertiveness. 2010). Therefore, it seems safe to conclude that
the word bossy is not indicative of executive
leadership skillsat least not positive ones.
In sum, neither bossy women nor bossy men are seen as superstars in their organizations.
Being bossy damages mens reputations as well as womens reputations; however, it
hurts women more.
Is there a penalty for acting bossy? And if so, are only women punished?
For both men and women, bossy behaviors were This pattern is consistent across our 20 years of
related to being seen as less promotable by data. In fact, looking at this trend across time, the
ones boss.viii In other words, both genders are gender gap is actually widening. Twenty years
punished for acting bossy in the workplace. ago, the relationship between being bossy and not
However, the link between being bossy and being promotable was about the same for men and
being unpromotable was stronger for women. women.ix Today, the relationship between being
This means that, when women act bossy in the bossy and not being promotable is significantly
workplace, it has more serious consequences stronger for women than it is for men.x
than when men do.
However, our research also uncovered some results that were inconsistent with the current Ban Bossy
campaign. Ban Bossy states that the word bossy is leveled only against girls who are assertive and
show leadership skills, and that girls are punished for these behaviors while boys are not. We found
that, at least in the workplace, this is not the case. Specifically:
The word bossy was used to describe people who show a lack of interpersonal leadership
skillse.g., someone who is controlling, dictating, ignores others, micromanaging,
prescribing, rude, pushy, authority-focused, and aggressive.
While the label does seem to be disproportionately aimed towards women, people also
considered many men coworkers to be bossy as well.
Men who are labeled as bossy or who act in bossy ways are not rewarded in the workplace.
They too are seen as unpopular, unsuccessful, and unpromotablejust to a lesser extent
compared to women.
Endnotes
i
For more information about these six indicators, please refer to the CCL white paper How to Be the Boss without Being the B-word (Bossy).
ii
A chi-square test shows that this difference is statistically significant 2 (2, n=201) = 18.52, p = .03
Notably, most people also described bossy coworkers as having high status in their organizations, and given that there are generally more men in
iii
high-status roles, it may be the case that there are simply fewer women in high-status positions to boss others around.
iv
A chi-square test shows that this differences is statistically significant (2 (1, n=201) = 18.52, p < .01)
v
Paired t-test, t(1, 199)= 1.97, p =.05
vi
ANCOVA, F(4, 196)= 4.10, p = .04
Self-report ratings of bossy behaviors (Mean men = 1.52, SD = .67; Mean women = 1.42, SD = .62); t(100337) = 23.30, p <.01, d = .15; Direct report
vii
ratings of bossy behaviors (Mean men = 1.69, SD = .69; Mean women = 1.59, SD = .66); t(88783) = 19.64, p < .01, d = .14; Boss ratings of bossy
behaviors (Mean men = 1.57, SD = .81; Mean women = 1.47, SD = .74), t(100337)=20.43, p <.01, d=.13. The degrees of freedom for direct report ratings
are different than self- and boss-ratings of bossy behaviors, because some of the managers did not have direct reports to rate them.
viii
This is true regardless of whether bossy behaviors were rated by direct reports or by bosses.
The correlations are statistically the same. Boss ratings of bossy behaviors and promotability: (men (r = -.28), women (r = -.25), Fisher z = 0.73, p =
ix
47 (pattern of correlational results is similar for direct report ratings of bossy behaviors with boss ratings of promotability).
x
The correlations are statistically different. Boss ratings of bossy behaviors and promotability: (women (r = -.37), men (r = -.23), Fisher z = 3.00, p <
.01; bossiness explains 13.8% of variance in promotability for women and 5% variance in promotability for men (pattern of correlational results is
similar for direct report ratings of bossy behaviors with boss ratings of promotability).
16 2015 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved.
About the Authors
Cathleen Clerkin, PhD, is a research faculty member William A. (Bill) Gentry, PhD, is a senior research
in Research, Innovation, and Product Development at scientist and coordinator of internships and postdocs
the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL). Cathleens in Research, Innovation, and Product Development
research interests include social identity management at CCL in Greensboro, NC. He also trains CCLs
and diversity, creativity and innovation, and applied Assessment Certification Workshop and Maximizing
social cognitive neuroscience and leadership. Your Leadership Potential programs and has been an
Some of her recent research includes perceptions adjunct professor at several colleges and universities.
of nontraditional leaders, holistic leadership In applying his research into practice, Bills current
development, innovation among women working in focus is on helping leaders who are managing for
male-dominated fields, and the link between national the first time in their lives. Bill has more than 70
identity and creativity. Cathleen has won multiple academic presentations, has been featured in more
awards and honors for her research, including than 50 Internet and newspaper outlets, and has
recognition from the National Science Foundation, the published more than 40 peer-reviewed articles on
American Association of University Women, and the leadership and organizational psychology including
Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues. the areas of first-time management, multisource
She holds a BA in psychology from the University (360) research, survey development and analysis,
of California, Berkeley, and MS and PhD degrees in leadership and leadership development across
psychology from the University of Michigan, Ann cultures, leader character and integrity, mentoring,
Arbor. managerial derailment, multilevel measurement, and
in the area of organizational politics and political
Christine A. Crumbacher, PhD, joined CCL in 2013 skill in the workplace. He also studies nonverbal
as a postdoctoral research fellow with a focus on behavior and its application to effective leadership
evaluation. She serves as an evaluator for CCLs and communication, particularly in political debates.
Leadership Beyond Boundaries program with a Bill holds a BA degree in psychology and political
concentration in early leadership development science from Emory University and an MS and PhD
projects such as Ravenscroft School and the Golden in industrial-organizational psychology from the
LEAF Foundation. Christine contributes as an item University of Georgia. Bill frequently posts written and
design and survey developer, as well as champion for video blogs about his research in leadership (usually
youth leadership development. Her primary research connecting it with sports, music, and pop culture) on
interests are single-case designs and Monte Carlo data CCLs Leading Effectively blog. You can follow Bill on
simulations. twitter: @Lead_Better
Julia Fernando, BSc, is an intern in Research, Acknowledgements: Thank you to Evan Skloot for
Innovation and Product Development at CCL. his assistance in the coding of the data included in this
Recently graduating from an undergraduate degree paper; and thank you to Al Calarco for the inspiration
in psychology from the University of Surrey, UK, Julia to conduct this research. We also would like to thank
is embarking on a career in research in the hopes Craig Chappelow, Emily Hoole, Marian Ruderman, Laura
of entering onto a postdoctoral program in the near Santana, and Davida Sharpe of CCL, for their insightful
future. She has a background in clinical psychology, review, advice, encouragement, and support for this work.
having worked at Great Ormond Street Hospital for
children in London as an assistant psychologist in
neurodisability. Julias research interests primarily
focus on the study of workplace diversity and
inclusion, particularly in women or employees with
developmental or intellectual disabilities. Julia has
received a number of grants and awards from the
British Psychological Society for her research and has
presented at several conferences both in the United
Kingdom and United States.
CCL - Americas CCL - Europe, Middle East, Africa CCL - Asia Pacific
www.ccl.org www.ccl.org/emea www.ccl.org/apac
+1 800 780 1031 (US or Canada)
+1 336 545 2810 (Worldwide) Brussels, Belgium Singapore
info@ccl.org +32 (0) 2 679 09 10 +65 6854 6000
ccl.emea@ccl.org ccl.apac@ccl.org
Greensboro, North Carolina
+1 336 545 2810 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Gurgaon, India
+251 118 957086 +91 124 676 9200
Colorado Springs, Colorado LBB.Africa@ccl.org cclindia@ccl.org
+1 719 633 3891
Johannesburg, South Africa Shanghai, China
San Diego, California +27 (11) 783 4963 +86 21 5168 8002, ext. 801
+1 858 638 8000 southafrica.office@ccl.org ccl.china@ccl.org
Moscow, Russia
+7 495 662 31 39
ccl.cis@ccl.org
Affiliate Locations: Seattle, Washington Seoul, Korea College Park, Maryland Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Ft. Belvoir, Virginia Kettering, Ohio Huntsville, Alabama San Diego, California St. Petersburg, Florida
Peoria, Illinois Omaha, Nebraska Minato-ku, Tokyo, Japan Mt. Eliza, Victoria, Australia
Center for Creative Leadership and CCL are registered trademarks owned by the Center for Creative Leadership.
2015 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved. 2.15